WGBGB: Val's House Has No Mirrors?

(Editor's note: this is republished from 2008. I had taken it offline as a draft, but put it live again because I think there's some revisionist history going on with the D'Orazio/Sims thing. I might try to restore the proper date if I can track it down.)

Wow. Now this is ridiculous. OK, it passed that point long ago. Now that Val has put all comments into moderation, she's actually going on a crusade against me.

She used my CIVIL DISCUSSION with Marc Guggenheim (one that he didn't express having a problem with at all) where I reported him to the WGA and equates it to the possibility of comic fans stalking and/or physically harming comic book professionals.

You know...taking Guggenheim's own public words on the same message board we were having the conversation on and then debate him on it...that's just like a stalker.

When called on it, here are the examples she gave in order to try to justify the extreme she was taking it to:

Example 1:

I find the fact that Kevin Huxford got involved with the personal life of a comic book professional absolutely chilling.

This is the same person who wrote on my blog alleged personal details of another freelancer's life. Ugly stuff, and rather sexist.

There seems to be a pattern, here.

These are things that are scary and cross the line. It is the job of moderators on boards and blogs to monitor this behavior.

These are the things that make me research security options for conventions and libel laws governing the Internet, and I feel 100% comfortable doing so.

The fact that I had to even say the previous sentence pretty much sums it all up.

Sub-topic closed.

By the way: she doesn't allow any comments from me on her page, while she continues (from the Devin Grayson thing) to try to smear my name through the mud.

Example 2:

Juan, say you run into somebody in your community and you two have a discussion about community policy or recycling or whatever. The other person violently disagrees with you, and insists that you admit he is right.

When you do not admit that he is right, he secretly follows you home and goes through your garbage to see if you were recycling properly or if your lawn adhered to the community codes. When he found something to pin on you, he goes to the sanitation department or the community board and reports you.

Now, the worst that could happen in this instance is that you would pay a fine. Certainly not on the level of "Taxi Driver," right?

But who does something like that to a stranger who happened to not share the same views as himself? What is the mental process behind a such a decision?

I've disagreed with you on this board before, Juan, but I do not go online looking for dirt on you to get you in some sort of trouble as the result of our online disagreement. It would never occur to me as something that people do.

And when things go from "conversation about comics" to "contacting the IRS or employer or WGA or whatever," when the fan in question is now an element in this freelancer's personal life -- there is a serious problem.

And in that case, the moderator of the board should have stepped in as soon as those things were mentioned.

Oh, now she's continuing the slamming of Newsarama that she claims she's not doing. For the record, people did step up as soon as they were aware of it (the reporting to WGA). That's part of how I realized my actions were causing problems for others and then decided to now PUBLICLY leave Newsarama (as I had already cut ties before that) and ShotgunReviews.

Example 3:

And I must say, this moderation feature is awesome!

Oh...I personally take that as her glee in deleting my one attempted post to call her on the twist and any others she might have deleted.

Example 4:

Juan,

A fan contacting someplace related to a freelancer's job or other related personal life issues -- no matter what the circumstances -- is crossing the line.

It's not motivated by a positive impulse. It seems to be more motivated from wanting to make an impact on this public figure's life -- and, in that way, becoming a public figure himself.

And it worked, didn't it?

And now we get to what she really thinks is going on, eh?

I didn't do this to create a name for myself. When I quit Newsarama and Shotgun, I had no idea what else I was going to do. I had just recently started blogging more at Shotgun (a site I miss being a part of). I knew I'd continue reviewing books on my own, because I believed a majority of the views I received on YouTube were still going to be there. I didn't expect any kind of bump from what happened...not positive, anyway. When Rich covered it, I was just glad that there'd be enough attention to insure that no one blamed Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield for anything I said or did.

I haven't actually become much of a public figure. I have a blog. A BLOG. Do THAT many people know my name? Please.

The accusation is extremely ironic, given that it is coming from you, the woman who made herself a public figure by savaging DC Comics due to what she perceived as misogyny with their books and stories of a ripped vagina. If only you had worked at Marvel Comics when it was a boys club (as Gail Simone described it), your fame would be due to savaging Marvel...and your ripped vagina.

You do understand that telling the world about what you perceive to be an environment that encouraged misogyny is impacting the personal lives of multiple people there? Just because you see a faceless target of a corporation doesn't mean that there are no faces behind it to be impacted. And when you keep it anonymous, you cause rampant speculation where even the innocent are thought to be guilty.

That ignores the point that it seems more likely that your difficulties at DC were caused by your incompetency, when you, an ex-DC assistant editor, couldn't tell the difference between Jefferson Pierce and John Henry Irons, despite the book referring to the character by name several times.

There's the additional irony that you deciding to try to drag me through the mud with your exaggerations is just serving to extend what ever 15 minutes of fame I might have gotten from having that talk with Guggenheim.

And to think...when you didn't agree with my comments on Devin Grayson (which weren't nearly as bad as you tried to make them out to be), you cautioned me to fear legal repercussions. I guess that's because she's a public figure and I'm not a...wait a minute. ;)

Shots In The Dark: Wizard World Chicago Coverage

Shots in the Dark at ShotgunReviews.com are currently posting a series of video interviews that were done at Wizard World Chicago. These are gradually appearing at Newsarama (Brian Michael Bendis is up!) as well. There's also an audio only Warren Ellis interview.

They had another kick ass interview set up, but it had to be scuttled due to scheduling issues. It was cool as much for how it was going to be conducted as for who it was to be with, IMO, so I'm not going into further detail. Watching it from off-camera would have easily been one of my highlights of the weekend, though. Just hope I'm lucky enough to be in the vicinity when it eventually happens.

Regarding that Bendis interview: damn, if he didn't capture exactly how I felt about Michael Turner's passing during the convention but couldn't figure out a way to say it without worrying that it would come out the wrong way.

Ugh...I Really Didn't Want To Do This

But wow...one of my least favorite people, the big dumb animal named Steve Ekstrom, is shooting off his mouth via his fat fingers on a keyboard again in a way that personifies stupidity. Not only that, but quite possibly misogyny.

About what, might you ask? Wrestling of all things. Several wrestling fans going at it over whether female wrestling is a worthwhile product...with Ekstrom championing the negative position. Along the way, he dismisses research as some sort of dirty debate trick, travels in illogical circles, and essentially argues that something isn't misogynist because it's caused by misogyny.

It'll really blow your God damned mind.

It's all in the comments section HERE.

Hart D. Fisher Just Might Have A Point

Lucas Siegel over at ShotgunReviews.com (full disclosure: one is a friend and the other is a place I used to contribute to) dug up the original solicitation text that was provided to Newsarama.com where Dark Horse claimed that UMBRELLA ACADEMY: APOCALYPSE SUITE was the comics debut of Gerard Way, when it was no such thing.

While you might be able to question the tone and tenor of Fisher's reaction to the whole thing, you can certainly see where an outsider would doubt his word versus that of Dark Horse, Previews, Newsarama.com, etc. Who are you going to believe? The "most dangerous man in comics" or everyone else? But he was right, obviously, that Gerard worked for him and he's right that people lied in claiming it as his first work. I'd call it just an oversight, but Dark Horse had officially claimed to never say this was his first work and that they were aware that he had done work prior to this mini.

Kevin Huxford Is A Big Fat Snitch

I've been reading responses to my reporting Marc Guggenheim to the WGA and publicizing Dan Slott's private e-mails asking me to call him so he could tell me how I got my review of his Brand New Day work so wrong. I've had a fair share of supporters, but I've clearly had more detractors.

They're bringing their frustration (some eloquent, some idiotic, some ignorant) to Newsarama, Shotgun Reviews, YouTube, and even here.

Being that I'd at least like for my actions to not be a headache for Matt Brady or Troy Brownfield, I'd like to create a place for you to bash me to your heart's content where it really should be: DIRECTLY SAID TO ME, WHERE I'M AVAILABLE TO BE BASHED AND RESPOND, WITHOUT IT IMPACTING INNOCENTS.

You can come with the ridiculous commentary, like Kirk Warren who compared my reporting Marc Guggenheim to a student accusing a college professor of rape (and other extreme and inappropriate examples), as it could ruin their career, regardless of the veracity of the accusation.

Problem is: I reported Marg Guggenheim's public support for Joe Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show and declaration that it is OK to watch a strike show as long as you don't DVR it or have a Nielsen box. There is no question as to whether he did it or not. There was only question whether it was wrong of him, as a WGA member, to publicly state such an opinion. He claimed that it wasn't and that my stance on the whole issue was merely because I wasn't aware of all the nuances of the issue. I merely directed the issue to people who WOULD be aware of the nuances: WGA leadership.

Call me a snitch. That's fine. Accuse me of trying to hurt someone's career maliciously? Suggest I'm libeling or slandering someone? You're way off on the facts. I never made anything up. At one point, I misinterpreted Marc's statement as being that he went so far as to give Joe the thumbs up BEFORE his Colbert appearance. I acknowledged that mistake and it was NOT part of anything stated to the WGA.

I'll be your snitch. In societies with a rule of law, there is a fine line between public service and snitching. Same goes for organizations, especially those centered around the ability of all to come together in unity so that they may collectively bargain as one. I'm pretty sure most of you calling me a snitch here have never had to worry about some weak link in your group's chain fucking things up for you.

It happens in union and non-union work. I've had co-workers nearly lose a contract I was working on, because they didn't care what they said in the presence of the client. Whether publicly proclaiming that he'd be able to do his job better if he actually knew what he was doing and got some training to unprofessionally insulting another contractor present on a conference call, my ability to be gainfully employed was out of my hands to some extent. The same can be said for a WGA member (and, let's not forget, PRODUCER with a possible conflict of interests) who tells the public that it is OK for you to keep watching struck shows or become a part of struck shows.

Let's not forget that Guggenheim and I were having a fairly productive discussion until another party showed up. I had actually missed Guggenheim dismissing my opinion out of hand at the end due to my not being in a Hollywood union until Slott had to chime in during his chasing me around (more on that in a separate blog).

After my post pointing out Slott's questionable actions of late (like e-mailing me repeatedly to have a phone conversation about my "wrong" review of his work), I was bowing out. There was nothing to be gained. I had received e-mails from friends that confirmed the wisdom of my decision to bow out, but they were after the fact.

Then, it would appear, someone decided to bring the attention of others into the mix. They did this quietly, while scurrying through the shadows. How could they publicly admit to doing so when they'd lose any mistaken shred of moral superiority on the issue? Forget that the act was pretty much transparent, despite their lack of owning up to it. Forget that an astute observer can pretty much tell who went crying to daddy when they felt I crossed the line. They didn't go to an organization I was a part of, either.

I'm not saying it was Guggenheim. I know it wasn't me. Hmmmmm.

I found it hilarious (and tacky) that the next interview that ran with Guggenheim at the 'Rama was done via a phone call while he was on the picket line. Screamed of damage control to me, but then the interview might have already been conducted before his error in judgment where he supported Quesada's appearance on The Colbert Show. With a week between his gaffe and his picket line interview, pardon me for being suspicious.

Happy Birthday...and Hello To My New Blog

Below is my Shotgun Reviews goodbye, copied in full. I'll be hosting my vlogs here and will probably let myself be even more opinionated now that no one can possibly be caught in the crossfire.

By the time any of you read this, it will be February 5th. My 33rd birthday and a bittersweet one. Why?

Because I am taking a sabbatical from Shotgun Reviews and have asked that my account at Newsarama.com be closed (which was honored by the site administrator).

Why did I resign? I'd like to think it is because I have principles, while others would probably suggest I just have a big mouth and don't know when to shut it.